VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(8):638-46. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.615369. Epub 2011 Oct 12.
The Participation Scale is an 18-item interview-based scale that measures social participation. In Indonesia, problems were reported with conducting the Participation Scale interview. To address these, a simplified version of the Participation Scale was developed and tested in Jakarta and Makassar, Indonesia.
People with different kinds of disability were interviewed with the original Participation Scale and the simplified version and we also asked their opinion about the scale. Fifty people without disabilities were included to establish the "normal" score for social participation. The following psychometric properties were calculated: internal consistency, criterion validity, floor and ceiling effects and interpretability. Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (>0.70). Criterion validity was calculated for the continuous participation scores using Spearman's rank correlation (0.77 [p < 0.0001]).
Floor and ceiling effects were not present. The control group was used to interpret the quantitative scores. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.88 and 0.80, respectively. The observations and feedback during interviews showed that there were still difficulties when using the simplified version.
The psychometric properties of the simplified instrument are good, but our findings showed that even the simplified version of the Participation Scale still remains difficult to understand for people with a low education level. Further work on the simplification of this instrument is necessary.
参与量表是一个包含 18 个项目的基于访谈的量表,用于测量社会参与度。在印度尼西亚,进行参与量表访谈时遇到了一些问题。为了解决这些问题,我们在印度尼西亚雅加达和望加锡开发并测试了简化版的参与量表。
我们对不同类型残疾的人进行了原始参与量表和简化版的访谈,并询问了他们对量表的意见。我们还纳入了 50 名无残疾的人,以建立社会参与的“正常”评分。计算了以下心理测量学特性:内部一致性、效标效度、地板效应和天花板效应以及可解释性。内部一致性使用 Cronbach's alpha(>0.70)进行计算。使用 Spearman 等级相关系数(0.77 [p < 0.0001])计算连续参与得分的效标效度。
没有出现地板效应和天花板效应。使用对照组来解释定量分数。灵敏度和特异性分别为 0.88 和 0.80。访谈中的观察和反馈表明,即使是简化版,使用时仍存在困难。
简化工具的心理测量学特性良好,但我们的研究结果表明,即使是简化版的参与量表,对于教育程度较低的人来说,仍然难以理解。需要进一步简化该工具。